How The Activation Of The White Identity Will Disrupt American Politics

What does it mean when one proudly declares that they are an American? What are the shared cultural and philosophical beliefs they are trying to communicate when doing so? What defining historical events and corresponding beliefs are implied within their prideful declaration?

America, unlike virtually every other nation they call neighbors, has enjoyed the luxury of a relatively clean canvass in undertaking the political experiment that was the American Revolution. While political revolutions are by no means the norm, the American one has been considered by its people as one free from the influence of historical conflict and Old World cultural norms. If one were to poll most Americans, they would define the American identity as one unaffected by race, culture, or historical grudge. An identity something along the lines of an American creed as follows,

“The American identity is adventurous men and women willing to leave the known in pursuit of the unknown with little more than the promise of an opportunity to build a better life. A life better than the one their current one, and entirely of their own making.”

While not incorrect in capturing the sentiment of those who forged such a creed, what is missing, is the ethnicity and nationality of the individuals responsible for defining this creed or American identity. Without that context, the American identity would seem to have been created by a group of early settlers each born of immaculate conception. While convenient for the purposes of avoiding discussions pertaining to race and culture in American politics, the reality is, the American identity was forged by white property owning European males who were both courageous, in chasing the unknown, and wildly ambitious in their uncertain pursuit of economic opportunity.

Why is that so important to remember when trying to understand America’s current political environment?

As America’s demographic future becomes increasingly less “white” and more “multicultural”, the American identity will become stop being an “American” one, and increasingly become a “white” one. What America has long believed to be its universal identity is slowly but surely becoming one belonging to the race of those responsible for its creation. One need not attend a Black Lives Matter rally to ask for their definition of the American identity in order to see it is wildly different than the one at a retirement community in Florida.

There’s a phrase among economists that “Demographics are destiny”, and while usually used as a commentary on the economic fate of a country, it is useful in understanding the election of Donald Trump and his ability to turn the industrial Midwest’s political allegiances from one of leaning Democrat, to toss up or leaning Republican.

As the definition of the “American” identity continues to shift to the “White” identity, the demographics of the American electorate will determine its fate. While for the first time ever the millennial generation represented a larger percentage of eligible voters in the 2016 Presidential election, Baby Boomer voter participation rates, as well as the majority of their generation being comprised of white voters, resulted in an electoral upset of epic proportions.

What did President Trump do that no other Republican had been able to in recent memory? e activated the dormant American White Identity. He endlessly alluded to the Baby Boomer’s preexisting perception of societal chaos and decay. President Trump’s entire campaign was one big foreshadowing of the demographic threat awaiting their definition of the American identity.

While not singularly responsible for achieving his electoral upset, as much was due to his opponent’s arrogant and calamitous performance, his decision to message around a theme of restoration struck a chord previously unheard in American politics. A chord which activated the perceived threat of a changing national identity among elderly white Americans, who in longing for the simpler times of days gone by, decided to turn out in droves and disrupt traditional voting patterns and electoral college alignments down racial lines.

What Happens Now?

Now that the American White Identity has been activated, the question becomes: how enthusiastic will their voting block be on election day?

The answer to that question can only be offered once the wedge issues of the election in question have been defined. Were the 2018 midterms held last week, during the height of the NFL Kneeling issue, one can be certain the White Identity voter would be wildly enthusiastic to show up on election day.

When electoral wedge issues center around patriotism, gender, long held cultural norms, religion, and immigration, the White Identity will activate on its highest setting. That high setting will result in a surge to whichever party or candidate panders most effectively on a message of cultural preservation. When electoral wedge issues are less pertinent to the perceived threat facing the white version of the American identity, political alignments will return to historical norms in the short run.

However in the long run, as the Baby Boomer generation’s electoral influence wanes and Generation X and Millennial voter participation rates rise, the American Identity will increasingly shift in a yet to be determined definition.

Multiculturalism’s ascent is an inevitably, as mentioned above, demographics are destiny, and the fate of the United States electorate is one of a multicultural demographic composition. Below is a hypothetical electoral map of the 2016 Presidential election if one removes Baby Boomer voters:

Hard to imagine a more bleak future for Republican and Libertarian voters than the sea of blue above, right? It is one thing for Detroit to decay under years of Democratic leadership, it is quite another to imagine the United States as Detroit on a grand scale…

What can Liberty Movement Republicans and Libertarians do in order to avoid a completely blue post Baby Boomer electoral map?

Not to be overly-apocalyptic, but should those who oppose the Detroitification of America fail to redefine the American Identity after the White Identity voters slowly pass away, the limited government constitutional republican political experiment the United States was originally conceived as, will become little more than a footnote in American history books. The stakes genuinely are that high.

With that being said, the opposition to progressive and American Left political ideas, will not resemble the Left-Right divide as it stands today. The divide will be drawn down lines much closer to those best debated by the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

Progressive thought leaders embrace a worldview which pursues perfection. There’s is a world where constitutional limits, like the Bill of Rights, are an annoying encumbrance in their date with an egalitarian utopia. The election of President Trump has done little to cause the Left to rethink or abandon its embrace of centralizing power. Even when faced with the thought of handing over the keys of their beloved central planning tool to an unexpected Republican “monster”.

Why?

The Left is well aware demographics are on their side and, while the election of someone like President Trump is a nuisance to endure, it will not a cause them to reconsider their pursuit of centralizing federal power. One would think a Republican in charge of a centralized federal government, especially one like President Trump who seems to be impervious to shame and the traditionally reliable attacks of public humiliation, but his win has caused no such abandonment.

The American Left’s refusal to consider the downside of centralizing power should serve as a stark warning to those who favor limiting the power of the federal government through the dissemination of it to local and state governments.

While the Bill of Rights is most often pointed to as the quantum leap in preventing the abuses of government against the individual, the founders understood that while strict constitutional limitations were a radical shift in designing a system of government, the true weapon against a federal government’s unquenchable thirst for power was a decentralized system placing any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution to the state governments. Decentralization was the Founder’s intended weapon of last resort against the grand designs of central planners.

As the demographic destiny of American politics arrives, the true partisan divide will not be one fought over historical and cultural preservation, but the preservation of decentralized power. The progressive/Democrat movement will argue in favor of centralizing power with promises of universal health care, college, and cultural toleration. The future of the American Left resembles the ideas of Bernie Sanders more so than Hillary Clinton. Will those ideas and their endless pursuit of a egalitarian safe space utopia end up becoming the American Identity?

Or will the opposition successfully redefine the American Identity in a fashion more closely resembling its revolutionary founding? A definition premised upon a suspicion of government and preference for the uncertain, yet unrestrained pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, as originally designed. Will what it means to call oneself an “American” communicate the principles of safety through equality, or the courageous decision to embrace uncertainty in exchange for the promise of opportunity?

While the future divisions of American politics have shifted after the activation of the white identity by President Trump, the American identity grows less attached to the existing white identity. If Liberty Movement Republicans and Libertarians hope to ever live underneath a government premised upon the principles and beliefs they espouse, they cannot begin redefining the American Identity soon enough.

The battle is not one over party, Republican vs. Libertarian, it is about resistance to government’s infinite appetite in acquiring power and preventing the grand designs of intellectuals who view society as a Utopian experiment, rather than the opportunity for each and every citizen under its rule to personally determine how best to pursue happiness.

These are the terms. All that remains to be seen is who will emerge victorious. Those who pursue power? Or those who define the American identity through a lens of suspicion toward it?

Currently, the type of speech being stifled is confined mostly to ideas that I personally find wrong, ignorant, and in some cases completely antithetical to the type of anti-authoritarian free society I want to live in. However, I also want to live in a society that allows bad ideas to be exposed to rigorous and open debate. Plus, I’m afraid that once the censorship ball gets rolling, anti-authoritarian libertarian ideas will soon be blacklisted as well.

For now, stifling “objectionable” conservative opinions is the trend of the day. This is being met with stiff resistance and condemnation from virtually everyone on the right. Sadly, this has also led many prominent republicans to look to the government for a solution.

The Republican Solution

After Google fired James Damore, prominent republican talk show host Tucker Carlson had this to say:

Google should be regulated like the public utility it is to make sure it doesn’t further distort the free flow of information.

Carlson isn’t the only republican thinking this way. According to this recent article from The Daily Caller, even otherwise pro-market republicans like Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon are on the anti-free market train in regards to Google and other social media platforms.

So what would it look like if popular social media sites became public utilities? I’m sure if you ask these republicans, they’d assure us that there’d be no government takeover, just a bit more regulation to make things more fair and equal.

Anyone who studies history knows that whenever you give government regulators an inch, they take ten miles! In order to get the level playing field these republicans want, they’d have to empower government to take over the Google search algorithm to ensure a more fair algorithm for right-leaning sites. They’d have to take over YouTube’s monetization policy to ensure every creator gets the same pay rate. They’d have to rewrite Facebook’s user agreement to make sure that no one gets banned for having a conservative opinion. They’d have to take over Twitter’s algorithm to make sure certain people don’t get shadow banned for having unpopular opinions.

What could be more socialist than the government stepping in to level the playing field and make sure all views and parties have equal representation, regardless of the desires of the actual platform owners?

Problems With Government Takeover of Social Media

Just the above words should send a chill down anyone’s spine, regardless of their political affiliation. Even if there was a way for a completely fair and open commission (ha!) to be set up to simply make sure the free flow of information isn’t restricted, does anyone really believe it’ll stay that way? How many times do we have to witness a well-intended government program get perverted for political and financial gains before we understand that government is never a solution?

Once government takes over the search algorithms and social media user agreements, it’s only a matter of time before they’re tweaked to suit the needs of the people and lobbyists in power. In fact, there are numerous exceptions to the 1st Amendment, so why wouldn’t the government alter the search algorithms of all search engines to help stamp out potentially unlawful speech? This would allow government to hide, or even eliminate, vast amounts of content that might fit into such categories as “obscenity,” “false statements of facts,” “fighting words,” “incitement,” and many forms of commercial speech (which is considered less protected.)

Is it really hard to imagine the major news outlets lobbying government to hide independent news outlets because they made “false statements of facts?” (#FakeNews!) Is it really hard to imagine the government hiding or eliminating websites that are generally anti-state under the claim that they may incite people to do violent acts against state actors? Is it really hard to imagine wealthy corporations lobbying government to make it harder for new companies to advertise on social media sites?

Perhaps the biggest problem with government turning search engines and social media platforms into public utilities is that it turns these social media platforms into legal monopolies, thus preventing any further innovation in this incredibly important field.

The Free Market Solution

Competition is the ultimate equalizer. No matter how big and influential a company gets, it will never be immune from the constant pressure of competition. Just in my short lifetime, many corporate giants have been decimated from competition. Giants like General Motors went from being one of the largest companies in the world to filing for bankruptcy. Only a government bailout saved it from going out of business completely. IBM went from being the top computer company on the planet to posting record breaking losses. Sears was once the largest retailer in America. Today it’s fighting to stay profitable while closing stores all across the country. MySpace went from being the largest social media site in the world to being nothing more than a punchline.

What happened to these giants? Why did they fall so far so fast? As companies grow, so do their expenses and potential liabilities. Their workforce becomes bloated. Their infrastructure, factories, and stores become out of date or obsolete. They become targets for lawsuits. Sometimes, even if a company does everything right and makes all the right moves, consumers just change their desires and tastes.

As companies and industries become more profitable, other entrepreneurs are tempted to enter their field in search of some of that juicy profit. These new competitors have the advantage of being much more nimble and adaptable to the changing needs and desires of consumers. They aren’t saddled down with layers of bureaucracy. Even when the top dogs adapt and stay profitable, no one has ever stayed on top forever.

The new wave of social media censorship is just that, new. Already we’re seeing the market react. Gab was created last year as a alternative to Twitter. Gab promises no censorship of its users. DuckDuckGo is a rising alternative to Google. It’s main selling point is that it doesn’t track its user like Google does. Not only does it keep your search terms private, but it eliminates the Filter Bubble that plagues other platforms.

It may seem impossible to imagine any company taking over the markets currently dominated by Google, Facebook, and YouTube, but it was once impossible to predict the fall (and the rise again!) of GM and IBM. There’s no way to predict who or what will knock over these behemoth’s of the Internet, and there’s no way to predict how long it will take. One prediction I will make is that if the government turns them into public utilities things will only get worse for free speech. With public utility status also comes the status of legal monopoly. If you think it’ll be hard for competition to take down popular social media platforms due to their network effects, just wait until they have the power of government behind them as well.

Previously I’ve written about how a private criminal justice system might look, you can find it here. However, in that piece I didn’t go much into the nuts and bolts of how private courts might work in a libertarian society.

Objections To Private Courts

There are numerous potential issues we can imagine if all courts were private. Who decides which courts are legitimate? How do courts get authority? What happens if a corrupt court takes a bribe? Who pays for the court? What if an accused person doesn’t want to participate in a trial? How does a poor person get legal representation?

In this piece I’d like to quickly offer some solutions that entrepreneurs may come up with if we had a free market in courts.

Voluntary Courts

If a dispute can’t be settled outside of court, the best case scenario would be for all sides to voluntarily agree to let a court decide the outcome.

So let’s look at a scenario. You get carjacked and roughed up. Your insurance company pays you restitution through a violent crime insurance policy. The insurance company then wants to find out who committed this crime, take them to court to make sure they’re guilty, then extract restitution from the criminal to cover their losses. They hire someone to gather evidence and put together a case. They find out that the evidence points to me being the criminal. They approach me and claim I own them $100,000 in damages for the restitution they had to pay as well as the costs of gathering evidence and finding me.

At this point, we could settle out of court and agree to have me pay them back over time. Or if I’m viewed as untrustworthy, they could offer to let me join a prison work camp that keeps my salary and pays my debt for me. Or I could refuse to pay them.

If I refuse to pay, they’re going to want to find a way to justify using force against me without upsetting the public and without starting a war between them and the security service I may have hired to protect me. If I do have a subscription with a security service to protect me, I’m sure that service wouldn’t want to protect me against the victims of my violent acts. So they would probably have a clause in their contract with me that voids their responsibility to protect me if I’m found guilty of a crime by a reliable court.

So at this point I’m refusing to pay restitution and the insurance company can’t risk using force against me. They need a reliable court to find me guilty before they can proceed in extracting restitution from me by force. How do they get me to voluntarily agree to go to court and abide by the ruling? Even if I’m innocent, the deck would appear to be stacked against me. Couldn’t they just hire the best attorneys and make me pay for their costs after I lose? Wouldn’t they have a friendly relationships with most courts and judges?

Even if I were innocent, I wouldn’t want to take my chances under this scenario…unless my accuser lets me pick the judge and their prosecutor! What if the insurance company is so confident in their evidence that they believe any competent attorney in the world could prosecute the case and any competent judge/jury in the world would unanimously find me guilty? Why wouldn’t they let me pick their prosecutor? Of course they’d make sure it would be an attorney that has a certain level of certification from a reliable certification company. I couldn’t just pull in a bum off the street.

If an accuser gives me the terms that I get to pick my own attorney, I get to pick their prosecutor, and I get to pick the judge/jury with the understanding that I immediately agree to surrender myself if I’m found guilty, I’d say these are pretty good terms whether I’m guilty or innocent. Of course the loser of the trial would also agree to pay all attorney and court costs.

If this offer became standard in criminal trials, it eliminates almost all possible objections to a private court system. The wealthy can’t push around the poor with superior attorneys or with friendly local judges. And since both sides are voluntarily agreeing to the outcome, they are establishing authority in the court’s decision.

This also has the added benefit of protecting innocent people. With this extremely high standard, I can’t image many accusers bringing people into trial unless they have overwhelming evidence.

Forcing Someone Into A Trial

No one would have the right to force someone to participate in a trial. Such an act would be considered nothing less than kidnapping if anyone other than a government did it today. Now I’m not saying that it won’t happen, just that it wouldn’t be standard practice.

One example of a possible scenario where a defendant might be kidnapped and held against his will is in the case of a particularly heinous crime with clear evidence of who the guilty party is. For example, if someone walks into a crowded area and opens fire on a crowd of innocent people, but is apprehended without getting killed himself, he would probably be held captive until a court rules on his guilt and liability. In this case it’s clear who committed the crime as he was apprehended in the act with numerous witnesses!

So who decides which defendants get held captive before trial and which don’t? There won’t be a universal standard, but the decision would be based on potential risk and liability. If someone is held hostage, and is later found not guilty, the people who held him hostage have committed a grievous rights violation. One which would call for a potentially huge restitution payment to the person who was held against his will. So if someone is to be held against his will before a trial, the people holding him better be sure of his guilt! Money isn’t the only consideration. If an organization gets the reputation of consistently getting it wrong and violating innocent people’s rights, I can’t imagine they’d stay in business long.

Trial In Absentia

The final issue I’ll address is what happens when someone doesn’t willingly participate in a trial? We’re assuming here that the accused wasn’t caught in the act of a heinous crime like the above example.

At this point there’s no choice but to try him anyway. This posses a very real problem though. How do we get the authority and justification to use force against him if he’s found guilty? After all, if I’m picking the judge, jury, and attorneys wouldn’t it seem like I’d intentionally try and stack the deck? Or at least wouldn’t it be viewed that way even if I was completely fair?

When thinking about this problem, one thing to keep in mind is that there would be no immunity like there is today with government. If a court today finds someone guilty and throws him in prison, but later it’s discovered they’ve made a mistake, the people that threw him in prison and found him guilty can’t be held accountable. In a stateless society, there is no immunity. So if I do stack the deck and railroad an innocent man, I’m liable for any damages I caused him. Even the attorneys and judges involved could have some liability if it’s shown that they were negligent in trying the case. This accountability alone will force an accuser to attempt to put on the fairest trial possible. The last thing they need is to take more losses by violating the rights of an innocent person.

How would the process look? The best thing to do to make sure it’s a fair trial is to find some kind of service that specializes in representing people who refuse to participate. There could be any number of law firms out there competing with each other to prove how fair they are. Various rating and certification agencies could exist to rate these firms.

Once the accuser picks a firm that has a good reputation in representing people in absentia, the same standard could apply as if the defendant participated. The firm representing the absent defendant could be offered to pick the prosecuting attorney, court, and judge/jury. This also has the added benefit of reducing or eliminating liability for the accuser if they do convict an innocent person. The accuser could claim that they did everything possible to put on a fair trial and that the bulk of the liability falls on the law firm that unsuccessfully defended the innocent person. This potential liability could also ensure a vigorous defense.

Corruption

Corruption will always be a concern when money and force are present. A private court system will not be immune from people attempting to pervert the scales of justice . If there’s a law suit that involves a large amount of money, why wouldn’t one side or the other attempt to buy off someone? If my side could win millions, it’d be worth a several hundred thousand dollar “investment” to buy off a juror or to pay the opposing lawyer to throw the case, right? And if a juror or lawyer could get a large payday so easily, why not take it?

I’ll admit this could happen, but with full liability I can’t imagine it happening very often. If a bribe is taken and is discovered, the bribe taker would be liable for all damages done. If an innocent man was forced to pay a settlement, the bribe taker would owe that innocent man back the money he was forced to pay along with any other damages he suffered as a result of being put in such a position. The briber would also be in the same boat when it comes to liability. Even a hint of someone taking a bribe could ruin someone’s reputation and career, whether or not any actual evidence is ever discovered of a bribe.

These disincentives would make bribery a rare occurrence.

No Perfect System

In thinking about if society should be organized with a central government in some capacity or if it should be completely left up to the market, we have to realize that no system will be perfect. Mistakes will be made. Bad people will do bad things.

The idea here is to find a way to eliminate all systematic violence. Even the smallest government rests on the ability to use taxes to finance it. Even the smallest government necessitates a monopoly of the courts, thus forcibly keeping competition from innovating and providing superior services to consenting adults. Perhaps worst of all, even the smallest government will be its own final arbitrator in whether or not one of its decisions is just and whether one of its agents is liable for their actions.

When government is allowed to be the final arbitrator of all rights and wrongs, even the smallest and most well checked government will abuse this power and grow. Only a completely stateless and private court system will prevent this inevitable erosion of individual liberty.

TV News isn’t journalism, so we need to stop pretending it is. At best, it is entertainment, and at worst it is propaganda. Either way, there is nothing wrong with questioning everything you see or read or hear. People that earn paychecks from news organizations sanctimoniously preach about journalists that died “in the line of duty” and public trust and expect that places them above criticism.

In 2007, Indianapolis had a mayoral race where the Democrat was the likely winner with millions in the bank. The Republican was an unknown with less than $100,000 in the bank the August before the election. The Mayor was going for a third term and was the favorite. He gave a controversial budget address, and his challenger offered a rebuttal in the public section.

That night, I was chatting up a cute reporter (no doubt hired for her journalistic skills) from the local Fox tv affiliate on the way out of the address. I asked if they’d use the challenger’s address. She then uttered a phrase that dropped the scales from my eyes when it came to American television news.

“Nothing. My editors said that since he isn’t buying ad time, we don’t want to give him free advertising.”

Though Puerto Rico has been held as a US territory since 1889, it wasn’t until 1917 when President Woodrow Wilson needed to find a way to force Puerto Ricans to fight in WWI that they were granted a pseudo-citizenship that came with many caveats and limitations… sort of a ‘friends without benefits’ arrangement. Hence, the Jones-Shafroth Act was born and given the status of US Citizen to all Puerto Ricans, which granted them the privilege of dying in their oppressors’ wars.

Puerto Rico has never really flourished under US control, though it has certainly seen better days. Government regulations have always stifled their small economy, but it just seems to keep getting worse. Local policies aren’t the only ones to blame either. Several US federal policies are among the largest contributors to the hardships felt by ordinary residents of the small, Caribbean island. I want to call these policies antiquated, but that word implies that there was ever a time when the policies were fair or proper, and it would be impossible to make that case.

MINIMUM WAGE LAWS

Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. The dollar is their currency, and they are bound by US laws, including the federal minimum wage. But how is that a bad thing? Don’t people in Puerto Rico deserve a living wage? I would argue that certainly, they do and it is exactly the minimum wage need that prevents them from earning one.

Though only 46 percent of the 3.7 million population of Puerto Rico participates in the workforce, as compared to about 60% in the mainland US, their median household income is just under $20,000 per year. Compare that to the almost $52,000 US median, which is slightly lower in my home state of Indiana’s at $50,532. A person making the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would make $14,500 per year based on a 40-hour workweek for 50 weeks per year. That sounds like nothing and, even compared to a very modest $50k per year. But consider that minimum wage in Puerto Rico is 74.3% of the median, things start to come into perspective. Since prices are higher in Puerto Rico, it’s kind of like if we were to have an $18.50 per hour minimum wage here on the mainland, except that $18.50 would only buy you $10 worth of goods and services.

So, Puerto Rico has an idle workforce that can’t go to work because it’s illegal for them to work for less than minimum wage. Yes, people who make minimum wage are poor, especially in a place where everything costs more, but to make it illegal to pay people below a living wage, minimum wage laws have forced many Puerto Ricans into living on no wage at all. In its attempts to outlaw poverty, the government has created more poverty and made it more severe.

THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920 (The Jones Act)

This federal statute is intended to make sure that maritime commerce between US ports is conducted using US ships, which also must be constructed in America and owned by Americans. This protectionism keeps Puerto Rico from being able to import or export anything unless they use the US Merchant Marine, which means US ships, constructed in the US, and crewed by US staff. This makes imports cost twice as much as they do in neighboring Caribbean nations. Their incentive to export is likewise reduced as Puerto Rico’s goods are more expensive and less competitive than mainland consumers and wholesalers can get elsewhere.

EXCESSIVE TAXATION

As it is not officially a state and therefore does not have representation in US Congress, they are not subject to the federal income tax. This often plants the notion that Puerto Rico is some tax haven in the minds of typical mainlanders. This is not the case. Puerto Rico imposes its income tax and sales tax. Still, the biggest blow to Puerto Rican prosperity came in the form of Section 936 of US Internal Revenue Code, which removed tax exemptions for US companies with subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Former President Bill Clinton signed legislation in 1996 that scaled back these exemptions over a ten year period. This effective tax hike went into full effect in 2006 and had since led to massive job losses, and Puerto Rico has endured 12 consecutive years of economic depression across the island.

ENORMOUS GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL FUNDING
One-third of Puerto Rico’s workforce is employed by the government. One-third of Puerto Ricans are on food stamps, not to mention other forms of help. Let’s assume that there’s no convergence between those groups for the sake of this article, though I suppose it is entirely possible that government employees may also be on some forms of assistance.

The largest employer on the Island is the government, because there is so much support that needs to be distributed. More help means less incentive to work, and the fewer people work, the more they need help. The more aid they need, the more government programs and employees are needed yet, with the decrease in jobs, the less money there is flowing into the government to pay those government salaries and cover the program budgets, creating a massively unsustainable situation that will lead to a crash.

Like much of the world, they will most likely see the failures of government as a pressing need for more and more government, and they will suffer more and more unintended consequences. I’m rooting for Puerto Rican statehood if that’s what they want. They deserve proper representation, but I fear that the United States and its own twenty billion dollar debt and thousands of unsustainable public programs could never save them from the consequences of the US’s poor decision-making and underhanded dealings that put Puerto Rico in this situation in the first place. If they could resist the call of socialism, they’d be better off pursuing independence.

Clyde Myers is a columnist and blogger from Columbus, Indiana where he serves in the leadership of the local Libertarian Party.

The Grenfell Tower Fire in London was a horrendous and preventable disaster that, as of this writing, has claimed 79 lives. In a libertarian free market based society, this tragedy would have been avoided.

From what we know, a small fire broke out in one of the apartment units and spread rapidly. The rapid spread of the fire appeared to be fueled by a recent renovation that left the building with sub-par cladding. This cladding apparently was not fire resistant and may have even been quite combustible. This, along with the complete lack of a sprinkler system in the individual units, doomed the building and its unfortunate inhabitants to suffer the tragic consequences we all witnessed.

Whenever something like this happens, especially when it claims innocent human lives, my thought goes to “Could this have been avoided?” My second thought is usually “Would the outcome have been any better in a libertarian free market society?”

After looking into what we know so far, it’s clear that government incentivized the neglect necessary for this terrible event to happen. Here are four reasons why this would not have happened in a libertarian free market society.

1: The Grenfell Tower Was Government Owned

In a totally free market, there are no government owned assets. When the government owns something, no one is directly responsible for its proper or safe use. There are people who oversee its use, of course. And in the case of The Grenfell Tower, a government funded non-profit property management group known as KCTMO was tasked to oversee the everyday operations of the Tower. But the buck doesn’t stop anywhere.

With government owned housing, no one put up their personal wealth to build it. No one stands to lose money or clients if a building is managed poorly or engulfed in a preventable fire. No one is held accountable. Worst case scenario for the government is that someone loses their job. Even then, they could easily use their contacts and friendships within government to get another cushy gig.

In most cases, citizens aren’t even allowed to sue the government in these situations. And if they do end up getting some kind of settlement, it’s not coming out of the pockets of the people responsible for the mismanagement and negligence, it’s coming from the taxpayers.

In a free market, whoever built such a building would have to risk their own money, credit, assets, and reputation. If their building is unsafe or is ran negligently, they stand to lose the millions of dollars they invested. They could also be sued. Their reputation could also be tarnished to the point of being put out of business permanently. In a free market, incentives are in place to insure that people build safe buildings.

In spite of all these incentives to do right in a free market, what if someone does want to build an unsafe building?

2. Insurance

Insurance companies would be a huge problem for the perspective builder of unsafe buildings. In a free market, insurance companies would have a lot more latitude than they have today in deciding who they choose to insure and under what terms.

With that in mind, can you imagine an insurance company risking potentially tens of millions of dollars without sending a team of inspectors to assess the safety of a building? Not just for fire risks, but any number of risks that could cause harm to customers which could lead to lawsuits that the insurance company would have to cover.

I view this as the biggest check and balance against unsafe building in a free market society. Any insurance company that insures unsafe buildings would quickly be bankrupted with claims. And with no government to bail them out, they wouldn’t be able to stay in business to continue insuring unsafe buildings.

3. Inspections

When people think about a world without government, one horror they imagine is a world without building codes and inspectors. They imagine people and companies cutting corners in their construction in order to save money. However, I see the opposite happening.

Today, government has a monopoly on building codes. If their department puts their stamp of approval on a building, we assume it’s safe. But because it’s a government monopoly, it can’t go out of business. If they employ a building inspector that is incompetent, or lazy, or just going through motions and passing buildings that are unsafe, we’re stuck with it. Same goes for cases of bribery or favors to friends of those in power.

In a free market, building inspectors would face competition and would be judged on their track record. For example, if a building inspection company gave The Grenfell Tower a passing grade on fire safety, chances are they’d be out of business right now. Not only that, but since they are obviously incompetent and/or untrustworthy, all their former clients would have to get re-inspections immediately from a more reputable company in order to satisfy their customers. After all, if my building had a seal of approval from the same company that gave The Grenfell Tower a seal of approval, I’d be demanding a new inspection immediately or threatening to move out. Wouldn’t you? Today, we don’t have that luxury. Some government agency signed off on The Grenfell Tower at some point, and that same agency is out right now signing off on another building.

But if the government isn’t there to force buildings to be inspected, why would greedy owners pay money out of their own pocket to get them inspected, you ask?

First, we go back to insurance companies. In order to get the best possible premium, insurance companies could offer discounts based on how often buildings got inspected by trusted inspection companies. Plus, it’s safe to assume that insurance companies would have their own inspectors on staff doing their own due diligence. And if a building owner refused to get inspections, how many insurance companies do you think would insure them? My guess in none, unless the owners are willing to pay outrageous premiums, which would defeat the entire purpose of cutting corners in order to save money.

Second, to attract customers. If you’re looking for an apartment and you find several that are similarly priced, but some have a very recent seal of approval from a reputable inspection company, and others have no seal of approval or approvals from ten years ago, which building would you want to live in? Or one may have a seal of approval from a reputable company, and another from a company that just got caught taking bribes and approving unsafe buildings. Again, which would you trust? Apartment buildings would compete with one another to prove how safe they are to you.

4. Personal Liability

For centuries, wealthy businessmen have been finding ways to use the coercive power of government to protect their assets and businesses. Perhaps one of the most effective policies they’ve managed to put in place is the idea of limited liability. This means that when someone goes into business as a corporation, they are now personally off the hook for any losses, debts, lawsuits, and any other possible negative consequences from the action of their business.

So if a wealthy person had owned The Grenfell Tower, the victims of his neglectful business practices couldn’t sue him personally. They could only sue the actual corporation that owned the Tower. And if the corporation’s assets were limited to the Tower and the land it sat on, the victims would be fighting over scraps while the owner’s other assets would be shielded from lawsuits. This lack of personal liability makes it easier for an already wealthy business owner to engage in potentially risky and negligent business practices. Practices they would never imagine engaging in if they were personally on the hook for any harm that these practices caused to innocent people and property.

In a libertarian free market society, there is no government to shield business owners from liability. If your negligence causes great harm to other persons and property, you are responsible. It doesn’t matter if you do it as an individual or as a business owner.

Fear is a wonderful motivator. If business owners were afraid that their actions as a business owner could possibly harm their personal assets, we can easily see that that business owners would take greater care in running their businesses.

But Couldn’t It Still Happen?

We can never say for sure that something wouldn’t happen under different circumstances. All we can do is speculate on how people would act given different incentives. We can clearly see that a free market would greatly disincentivize the type of negligence that was necessary for a Grenfell Tower type of tragedy to take place. And if someone did happen to build such a building, they and everyone involved in building, insuring, and inspecting this building would be quickly put out of business and their personal fortunes would be subject to lawsuits from the victims of their negligence. Nothing can bring someone back from the dead, but at least in a market based society there wouldn’t be a government to stop victims from seeking full restitution and there wouldn’t be government monopolies that prevent bad actors from going out of business.

Since the rise of the Trump Movement and the Alt Right, some in the libertarian community are rethinking their stance on borders and immigration. Traditionally, libertarians believe that the government has no right to restrict people from traveling. Today many are abandoning that stance in favor of government controlled borders. Specifically, Trump’s plan to build a massive wall is somehow seen as a legitimate government action.

So how do libertarians morally justify a massive, centralized government border-industrial-complex? There are two major arguments libertarians typically use to justify themselves here. The first boils down to “the ends justify the means”. Higher levels of immigration will equal bigger government, they claim. Therefore, supporting an endlessly costly big government program and the inevitable Liberties it will trample on is worth it because it will actually REDUCE the size and scope of government.

This seems to be the most popular argument among closed-border libertarians, but that’s not the argument I’m tackling today. Most of the holes in this stance are tackled very well in this Reason Magazine piece if you’re interested in reading that counter argument.

The other argument, which is the one that I find most compelling, is what I’m tackling today. It’s the claim that since a world without government would have private borders, it’s not necessarily anti-libertarian to advocate for government controlled borders in the meantime.

Why It’s Compelling

An interesting analogy to the border situation is the fact that even the most hardcore libertarian doesn’t object when the government prosecutes murderers, rapists, and thieves. The government has a monopoly on criminal prosecution, thereby preventing private actors from legitimately prosecuting criminals and extracting restitution. Since they are actively preventing private solutions, we have no choice but to at least begrudgingly advocate for the government to do what it can to prosecute these criminals. We may prefer a private option, but in the meantime we can’t just let these violent criminals run free.

Similarly, the government monopolizes the control of the border. It owns large swaths of land that border other countries, it owns the roads, and it exercises tremendous control over airports and seaports. The closed-border libertarians theorize that without government, these points of entry would all be privately owned and therefore owners would be able to restrict and prevent people from entering. Private land owners would take measures to prevent trespassing. Airport owners and seaport owners could put whatever restrictions on who can use their service that they like. And road owners could similarly prevent access to their roads to anyone they please. Since these owners could restrict who would be able use their property in a free market, closed-border libertarians claim that it’s completely legitimate to advocate for government to enforce similar restrictions in the meantime.

Since we’re willing to accept and even advocate for the government to be involved with prosecuting violent criminals, we should also accept the government exercising control over the borders, the closed-border libertarian could claim.

Where It Falls Apart

While it’s true that private property owners could prevent people from using or traveling on their property in a free market setting, there’s no clear evidence that all owners would want to stop people from certain geographical regions from using their services. There’s no clear evidence that even a majority of these owners would be so restrictive. In fact, the more restrictive a firm is, the less money it will make.

Take private airports for example. On the surface, you would think it’d be easy and cheap to prevent immigration. An airport could just simply refuse to accept airplanes from certain countries. Boom. Problem solved. Except that someone from a “bad” geographical region could just move to a “good” geographical region and enter the country through their airline. So the airport would either have to accept that a few “bad” immigrants would get in, or they’d have to spend huge amounts of money to do extensive background/litmus tests on every person coming in from an International flight. I can’t imagine that they’d opt for the latter solution, especially since they’d have to pass the expense to their customers.

But let’s say, for some reason, the majority of airport owners decide that they don’t like making as much money as possible and they do whatever it takes to stop “bad” immigrants from using their services. The only thing they will accomplish is raising the profits of their competitors that still allow these people to use their service. And even if ALL the current airports in the land decide to form some kind of cartel with the intention to heavily restrict foreign flights, this will only embolden some profit-seeking entrepreneur to build a new airport outside of the cartel to take all the previously unwanted business. And since they’re the only game in town, they’d make tremendous profits. These huge profits would incentivize other people to build similar airports, or it would incentivize current airports to buck the cartel and start loosening their restrictions. In a free market, discrimination can be costly.

The same goes for roads. Yes, some road owners could have some sort of litmus test that they force all their customers to take before using their road, but that can get costly and intrusive for their customers. The increased costs and intrusive paperwork will restrict the “bad” immigrants, but it will also drive away large amounts of “good” Americans who just want to travel without paying big fees and filling out intrusive paperwork. Plus, entrepreneurs who are seeking profit are always there to pick up the slack from businesses who refuse or alienate potential customers.

The Wall

But surly The Wall is feasible in a free market, right? Today we see many examples of gated communities and corporate buildings with walls, fences, tight security, etc. There are already numerous examples of private walls to protect property, so wouldn’t the invisible hand of the free market lead entrepreneurs to build a wall along a border with a government controlled territory in order to stop its people from trespassing? No.

The first problem is money. Private walls are only built, maintained, and guarded in order to protect property that has significant value. It wouldn’t make sense for someone to build, maintain, and guard a wall if this wall costs more than what the actual property is worth!

We could hypothetically say that a network of walls could happen if the entire border is populated with wealthy, thriving neighborhoods and valuable companies on the “good” side. These communities could be gated as many are today. However, any wealthy and thriving community is constantly in need of customers and workers. The people on the “bad” side could end up being both. In this case it would be in the best interest of the businesses of the communities to allow access to its services to as many people as possible. More people also means a wider potential employee pool, which could ensure better employees and better services and prices for members of the communities. Someone also has to mow the lawns, clean the pools, pick up the trash, and perform any number of menial low-paying jobs. The homeowners who live in these expensive, gated communities probably aren’t garbagemen and pool cleaners. Even in this hypothetical world, any private borders that are built would have to be rather porous. No wall will overcome the demands of commerce.

The other problem is the lack of monopoly. Unless we’re talking about a very small border, odds are at least some of the property owners on the border won’t erect any barriers. In fact, just the opposite would happen. Since this is a free market, if there is a demand for people to travel, entrepreneurs will work to satisfy that demand. Without a government monopoly, who’s to stop someone from buying land on a border and building roads that charge potential immigrants for using them? Right now potential immigrants pay thousands of dollars to smugglers, called Coyotaje’s, to get them across the Mexico/U.S. border. With this much market demand, I can’t imagine entrepreneurs NOT building roads to make profits off people who are in the market to escape their oppressive territory. The only way to stop private individuals and firms from doing this is if there is a centralized government that has a monopoly on the border.

Freedom of Association

When all else fails, the closed-border libertarian often falls back on the freedom of association. No one has a right to force them to associate with people’s that they don’t wish to associate with. They are correct, but that only works on their own private property. Once you leave your property, and enter someone else’s property, they choose who they would like to associate with. Freedom of association works both ways. You get to choose who you’d like to associate with on your property, but you don’t get to dictate to someone else on their property who they get to associate with. And in a free market setting, whether the closed-border libertarian likes it or not, businesses are incentivized by profit to associate with as many people as possible from as many lands as possible in order to get the most customers and the best employees. Only a government monopoly can build barriers and walls to stop the movement of people.

I got in an argument with a liberal on Facebook the other day. This is a pretty common occurrence for me (and much of America) but I don’t mind. I like the arguing. Nothing gets my fire burning like a good debate. It’s good to throw around ideas with people that disagree: you’ll either learn something new or sharpen your own viewpoint for later debates. It’s a win-win as long as it’s a good debate. This was not a good debate however. I like to think of myself as a pretty level headed person but I’m ashamed to say I lost control pretty quick. I’ll attach the original post then continue my thoughts below.

Post in question*

There’s a lot to process there. Usually I find it’s good to focus a rebuttal on one point and go from there (one good thing to keep in mind when forming an argument is that one good point alone is better than that same good point with a few weaker points your opposition can attack aggressively). What I’m not proud of is I didn’t focus on the thing that bothered me the most. I went after Hillary right away. Called her a crook and a liar and maybe even a sociopath (the Clintons often get me seeing red in conversation). I should have focused on the most offensive thing in that statement: point number 3.

I understand it can be tough to debate certain people. There’s a certain class of people who never quite learned how to have a discussion. No matter what you say they’ll dig their heels into the same tired points over and over again. They’ll respond to a thoughtful point with insults and screaming. The original poster phrased it succinctly: they are not there to have a talk, they are simply basking in their own self-righteousness. I have a name for people like this. I call them “everyone at one point or another in their lives.”

It’s good to realize when you’re wasting your breath and need to move on. The entire modern world was mostly built by people who realized they weren’t getting anything done and decided to pursue a more successful path. The freedom to pick our battles is one of the most positive things about modern life. Specialization is one of the greatest forces for our accomplishments as a society and may be the core reason we’ve made it this far. Few animals even get a chance to die in a warm room surrounded by loved ones (dogs being the only other one I can think of. Thanks for being bros, dogs.). But it’s necessary to understand that people’s willingness to listen is based on potentially millions of things that any individual trying to convince them has no control over. Refusing to engage people is hands down the worst way to jumpstart a social movement. The people who are your loudest opposition are often times the people most worth engaging. Many times these people are angry simply because everyone refuses to talk to them as if they’re adults. They are treated constantly like their opinions don’t matter and that encourages them to sink deeper into their beliefs.

This attitude is exactly why the democrats lost the election. Well, their first mistake was running Killary instead of Papa Joe (I don’t like Joe Biden but that guy would’ve polled at 70% the moment he stepped in the arena and would’ve never lost that lead). There are a lot of reasons people voted for Trump (it would be asinine to assume 40+ million people had the same motivations for getting up in the morning, let alone picking the leader of the free world) but if we focus on the so-called “swing voters”, the ones who didn’t decide until days before the election, we can get a better picture of why he won. The democrat strategy was to vomit a list of terrible things that Trump has done and they assumed that would be enough. But for the people who made it to November without their final decision this was a problematic strategy. If they were still undecided after the litany of terrible press that followed Trump clearly more of the same wasn’t going to change their minds. Compare that to the republicans strategy of parroting all their concerns and making ambitious promises to fix those concerns immediately. Now, I’m not saying every Trump supporter was stupid enough to believe everything he said. In any other election it would be a terrible strategy. But Hillary was the one person this strategy worked gangbusters against. When they asked each side to present their case one made them a bunch of crazy promises and the other called them evil and idiotic for even considering literally the only other option they had. They felt their opinions were being shouted down so they found someone to shout down the democrats’ opinions.

I suppose refusing to engage is a slight improvement over silencing opinions through oppression. If the louder, angrier potion of our population simply shut up it would certainly be a lot easier to think. This would be a fine decision to make if one doesn’t care if their movement dies. Somehow I don’t think this is what democrats (or any other ideological group) want however. So if you’re willing to listen to what I have to say (admittedly I have zero credentials) I would like to offer one giant piece of advice to get the most out of your debate experiences:

Never outright refuse to debate anyone

This is the simplest piece of advice I can offer. People tend to think of losing an argument as a more damaging act than anything else when trying to get a movement going. This causes them to only pick fights with people they know they can beat. They argue the same few good points against people who haven’t thought out their position as well just so they can add a victory to their group’s pile and call it a day. One argument has never changed anyone’s mind though. People have far more bad ideas than good so evolution has given us this gift of not believing everything we hear right away. To win hearts and minds you must stoke the flames of discussion so they are constantly burning. You may argue with a brick wall for years then one day that wall finally agrees to a point you made and you realize they were listening all along, the change just wasn’t visible until now. And even beyond them, someone might overhear the argument and start silently moving to your side.

I’m not saying you have to continue a bad argument as long as they’re willing to continue, only so much work can be done in a day and we all have our limits. Just don’t flat-out give up on people. That won’t inspire them to get better, only sink lower (sometimes even violently so). Given how close the election was I’d feel comfortable saying it was the sole reason the democrats lost an election they should have won in a landslide.

And conservatives, don’t start getting all smug because the liberals appear slightly worse in this metric at the moment. This has been the trend in American politics for decades now. One party gets in power and decides they don’t have to listen to anything their opposition has to say. It’s why the presidency seems to without fail switch parties every 8 years as of late. The party in power simply becomes insufferable and the swing voters start looking elsewhere. Put the work in to break the cycle.

Post navigation

Get Our Podcast

We Are Libertarians helps you sound smarter while talking to your friends. We examine current events from a libertarian perspective while treating modern politics with all of the irreverence it deserves. We toss out the screaming heads, put people before political parties, and give context to the news to make you think. Our host is Chris Spangle, a fifteen year veteran of politics and media. He leads a discussion amongst friends and high-profile guests that span the libertarian spectrum of thought. Founded in 2012, the podcast posts on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Podcast Reviews

Good Mix

August 20, 2018 by BigSkyCo from United States

Great mix politcs and humor. I love the cast of characters, even Vibbs.

Best Libertarian Podcast.

July 20, 2018 by Alistair K. Nye from United States

Without a doubt the best libertarian podcast out there. Deeply insightful, smart, funny as hell, and easy to understand even when they dive deep. They are neither left or right, libertarianism at it's best. It's 'üge.

Best intro to Libertarianism

April 7, 2018 by TILAME from United States

Highly recommend for independents and libertarian-curious. Casual dialouge, informed hosts, and great recent changes that focus more on current events than personal relationships. The host remains largley non-partisan, and critical of every party, including the Libertarian Party. The host has an engaging voice, and the episodes are long, so it is perfect for work or long drives.

Great Show

March 28, 2018 by Davistribe50 from United States

Easy to follow. They talk about things that matter to most people. A fresh look you won't get elsewhere.

If you feel orphaned by the two parties, welcome home.

November 27, 2017 by Rainbow Chardy from United States

I’ve never fit into the left or right, soon realized I was a Libertarian but still didn’t feel like I had resources or a community to tune into where ideas where treated in a way that RESONATED. Enter WAL. Such a great feeling to find others like myself. Only suggestion? I wish there was a woman—shoot I wish I *was* the woman! Let me know if I can contribute!—and sometimes it’s total boy nerddom...which is fine but I would totally dig a woman(s) interaction in the mix. You guys are great and don’t stop!

Best libertarian podcast

October 7, 2017 by BoomJake from United States

My favorite political podcast. Chris Spangle and his team have great chemistry and are well researched. I laugh and learn every episode.

Long time listener

July 9, 2017 by Chris JV Chris JV from United States

Rewriting this review because this show has been excellent lately.
Been listening for a while and you guys are doing a great job improving the quality of this show.
What differentiates it is that Chris is a left leaning libertarian, Greg is a right leaning libertarian and Harry is an anarchist. It's interesting having those three strands of the modern libertarian movement interact on current events. Cat is actually a decent addition.

Equally Political and Entertaining

July 1, 2017 by Really nice music from United States

One of my favorite political podcast. This show will go as deep as any other show you may listen to, but it's also one of the funnest shows out there. Greg is incredibly thorough in his research and him and Chris are a true dynamic duo.

Deplorable Cucks

June 28, 2017 by RazmanianDevil from United States

Okay the title seems negative, but these guys get that humor. This podcast has been a diamond in the rough for me. They're more professional and intelligent than you would think and just childish enough in their dialogue to hold my attention. My new favorite and they have 100% my support.

Love it.

June 24, 2017 by @troybotkins from United States

Love the show!

A breath of fresh air

June 7, 2017 by Kristi Liberty from United States

I've recently gone back and listened to the episodes from the beginning. A great show from Episode 1 to Episode 211. The hosts may change around a bit, but the show brings great Liberty oriented content on a consistant basis. I even <3 the opening banter!!!!

normie poison

June 6, 2017 by Millennail Liberty from United States

The only people who don't like WAL are statists, normies, and boomers.

Intellegent, Funny, and Wild

June 6, 2017 by Kyllat from United States

Love it. Yuge podcast network. They have the best words.

Listen to every episode

June 6, 2017 by cmurray1105 from United States

This is such a great podcast. Chris Spangle is the bees knees. I love the show!

Great show

May 11, 2017 by Bald Jordan from United States

Other phone crashed again. Idk what's going on with it. Where are you at?

Entertaining and informative

May 4, 2017 by Kent1423 from United States

We Are Libertarians provides an honest and unique perspective on modern political goings on. They present the side of the news that mainstream media ignores because they aren't beholden to any corporate overlords. It's informational, but also FUN! Too many libertarian podcasts forget the importance of having fun while presenting ideas.

Tad Western approves ??

April 21, 2017 by Tad Western from United States

WAL is the pinnacle of political podcasts!

Great show!

April 16, 2017 by jennbgray from United States

Libertarians can get pretty wonky sometimes, so it's great to have a more relatable alternative.

Thank you Dear Leader

March 30, 2017 by zwansong76 from United States

Entertaining and informative. Who but Spangle & Lenz could use the word praxeology in a conversation, and make it FUNNY? Good stuff.

Podcast? More like hot bodcast!!

March 25, 2017 by Cale Tompkins from Canada

Amirite?!? Not only are these men smart but they're in peak physical condition. I can hear their virility over the airwaves.

Good usually

March 20, 2017 by MrKrabbs1 from United States

If you can get beyond the self congratulatory circle jerk that occurs basically every episode, it can be pretty enjoyable. However, like all other libertarian podcasts, the hosts like to pay themselves on the back excessively and bask in their accomplishments--real or imagined.

Favorite libertarian podcast

March 10, 2017 by Extreme iOS user from United States

Lots of great guests. Worth a listen. A little light on philosophy, but it makes for that by being very entertaining.

Informing and Entertaining!

March 3, 2017 by 1233554367585$29 from United States

I love this podcast so much! The cast is pretty diverse (maybe get some more women), and they have a variety of different types of shows. Some are more informational about news from a libertarian perspective, and others are more emotional and talk about libertarian solutions to current government created problems. The cast is also pretty hilarious, which makes the longer podcasts very easy to listen to.

The most fun you will have listening to political banter!

January 30, 2017 by Ben DeJong from United States

If you are a libertarian minded or even lib curious, this is the podcast for you! I have listened to a dozen different libertarian podcasts and no one blends humor with topical political insight from a true libertarian point of view as perfectly as Greg and Chris. Keep up the great work guys!!!

This is by far my favorite podcast.

January 26, 2017 by Americamericafreedom1234usa from United States

So inviting. So intelligent. So funny. So crude. So philosophical. Wow.

Wish it was more than once a week

January 19, 2017 by Elvis236 from United States

I love this podcast. Superb libertarian talk and political/media criticism and commentary. I could listen to Chris and Greg for hours. Keep up the great work guys.

Amazing

January 2, 2017 by Davgr007 from United States

A great libertarian podcast!

Love y'all!

December 9, 2016 by Cynd1966 from United States

I recently discovered your podcast. I have known for years that I lean towards the Libertarian party. I first learned of the Libertarian movement from listening to Neal Boortz. And even today I still listen to him after his retirement. It is great to hear others who share some of the same opinions.

Worth Your Time

November 23, 2016 by Reasonable01 from United States

This is a really great way to ease into politics if you haven't really paid attention before. The hosts are funny and very well informed. Also, their unabashed criticism of both democrats and republicans makes the entire podcast seem a lot more honest.

Great Show

November 22, 2016 by DaneKirk from United States

One of my favorite podcasts. The analysis is right on and much better than the garbage you get from the MSM.

Very informative and eye opening.

September 9, 2016 by AndrewBowman91 from United States

As Chris says in the intro, they make sense of the world around us by thinking differently.
I highly encourage everyone to listen to their entire postcast family. You will not be dissapointed. By presenting topics in a way that brings several views to the table, Chris, Greg, and No Show Anagnos, and #NeverBitner + guests, provide real commentary. I always enjoy listening and appreciate the work the entire team puts forward to providing the content. Everyone who contributes has something meaningful to say and I have learned something new every episode.

Becca

August 2, 2016 by Beccakephart from United States

I think I finally realized why as a generally liberal democrat that I love this podcast so much. Chris and Greg (and others) have a special gift in that they are able to challenge my political conclusions without elliciting a defensive response. That's rare and appreciated. Keep up the good work.

Amazing

June 12, 2016 by MrNye from United States

A great look at both politics and principles. You'll laugh and learn, and what's better than walking away knowing more and having had a great time learning?

These guys are #SoBrave

April 24, 2016 by Clitcommader from United States

This podcast touches me where my feels are. It's like hanging out with some friends and discussing what's going on in the world, yet I'm just listening. I'm addicted, the first thing I do when I wake up is to see if there is a new episode to listen to. I can't believe how brave Belinda is....

Great!

April 6, 2016 by CD Kauai from United States

Love that they sometimes drink beer and eat pizza while discussing libertarian subjects and deal with the cats in the room!

Dank Memes

March 11, 2016 by Meech1889 from United States

Bro

Always a good time

March 6, 2016 by Flychiken from United States

One of the most funny and fun podcast to listen to, and they bring on interesting people from multiple viewpoints.

Best Libertarian Comedy Podcast!

February 3, 2016 by Ecc3_15 from United States

Very enjoyable and funny. This is probably my favorite podcast.

Wonderful podcast

January 22, 2016 by p_aaron_oid from United States

These guys are informative all while not taking themselves to seriously. Sometimes you start to believe you are in the apartment having a conversation with them.

Trust me. I´m listening for more than 2 years

January 19, 2016 by The Iluminado from United States

I´ve been following these guys since about the 20th episode. That was the golden time when their main mission was to teach us about some basics of the libertarian stuff and discuss some of the current political status. I´ve learned a lot. For the episodes 20-60 that format got its momentum with some hard and thrilling discussions, especially when Geena was on. Then we got a series of confusing programs when our Great Leader went missing, due some kind of menace from the Great White North. That where some hard times. Then Our Dear Leader came back with some new guidelines, bought some cats, lost weight, started working on the hours of a 18th century farmer.... The enlightenment came under new fatwas and here I am... I dear listener for more that 2 years and a true fan.

Great Pod

January 5, 2016 by VinnyAnders from United States

Chris and co are always informative and present their opinions from differing perspectives. Entertaining and fun!

Fan

December 30, 2015 by Rob Kendall from United States

This show is amazing! Very entertaining and a good listen.

The Only Politics Podcast

November 6, 2015 by The Only Politics Podcast from United States

My husband started listening to podcasts earlier this year, and of all the politics podcasts he listens to, this is the only one I will listen to with him. At first I thought it was weird, but now I get upset with him when he listens to them without me. I subscribed to the podcast just so I can listen to the ones he doesn't save for us to listen to together.

Excellent

October 19, 2015 by Simba. L13 from United States

Great discussion with a great group of differing opinions and personalities. They have given me a lot to think of and are a very fun listen.

Fresh and Hilarious Take on Politics & Current Events

June 4, 2015 by FlyinRyan7 from United States

If you’re looking for a podcast that mixes current events, politics, libertarianism, and humor, look no further. This podcast is dynamite and includes a crazy cast of hilarious participants that will leaving you intrigued, perplexed (...Miah...), fired-up, touched, laughing or some combination all led by Chris “Dear Leader/The House I Live In” Spangle.
Hands down this is my go-to pod cast and I’m pumped to see what these guys/gals do in the future.

Good Stuff

May 23, 2015 by DaveJones*** from United States

WAL is fun and informative. Highly recommended!

A great podcast!

May 18, 2015 by cxykttn6969 from United States

Dear Leader and his subordinates bring a delightful insight into the current happenings of our country! This podcast has a wide array of characters ranging from the slightly dopey (Greg Lenz) to the very exotic (Joe Ruiz ) and The powerful (Chris Spangle!)

Truly a great Political/Current Events Podcast

May 9, 2015 by Touch001 from United States

I can’t recommend this podcast enough, I’ve been listening for a couple years and its only gotten better, it is both entertaining, humorous, informing, and educational. It’s easy to listen to and you laugh and enjoy the time spent listening to it. Keep up the good work guys!

A Circle of Friends

April 30, 2015 by graphicahead from United States

For someone who is exposed to very few people who think deeply about the impact of philosophy and politics on their daily lives, WAL provides water in the oasis.
I discovered the show very early in my exploration of the libertarian worldview. Without this resource, I may not have felt as connected to the sometimes complex concepts one encounters in academic writings and the daily unfolding of current events.
A listener who wishes to hear a range of ideas for applying the philosophy of liberty, rather than being bombarded with singular and absolutist positions, WAL is the podcast for you.
The down to earth and unscripted discussion is authentic and genuine and makes you feel as though you are a participant amongst a circle of friends.

Open your Mind

April 29, 2015 by Sawzall582 from United States

Consider liberty and freedom with a cast of independant thinkers. Current event analysis and Libertarian philosphy are both explored. Give these freethinkers a chance. One feels like a part of the discussion as topics are explored.

Where Are You?

April 25, 2015 by hollenjj from United States

Guys, on episode 104 you did not close with the tag line. I know Greg was not on the show, but come on...ya gotta do it.
Great shows every episode and I love that you're back more frequently.
You guys rock, but on the tag line...next time... "Try to do better next time". ?

great

April 18, 2015 by you can call me papi from United States

at first i thought, great... another minarchist podcast but these guys really are great political new and commentary. good job, my only advice is easy on the rand paul jerk

So Good

April 14, 2015 by RedSoxFan207 from United States

I love listening to this podcast!
Informative, many points of views, and funny

Doesn't take itself too seriously

April 12, 2015 by Cdanl2 from United States

This is an entertaining discussion-format podcast discussing a variety of political issues - but unlike a bunch of other libertarian podcasts, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and entertains as much as it informs.

I started listening to WAL in Spring of '14. Since the political dicussion covers a variety of topics, it's important to find authors, audiobooks, and podcasts, that keeps you interested in the ideas surrounding the topics. The hosts do a great job of uniting politics and humor. They keep you laughing while maintaining a solemn temperament. They do a solid job in covering as many topics in each episode, so don't worry if you missed it; eventually, it will be discussed. A must have subscription for any person who wants to be involved in the discussion or just wants to know what's going on. Personally, I enjoy the foreign policy discussions the most.

Great Podcast from a liberty perspective

April 4, 2015 by Goulio05 from United States

These Guys are very informative and have good entertaining banter. They will also force you to examine your own perspective.

Converted!

April 4, 2015 by Kiltedman5332 from United States

After years of feeling disappointed with both democrats and republicans I have finally discovered why. I am a Libertarian! These podcasts are totally on point. Love listening. So proud to have gone to high school with these guys.

Great

April 4, 2015 by Eye_see from United Kingdom

Like a bunch of great friends selling you all things libertarian.

Wildly Sub-Par

April 3, 2015 by Mike Pence from United States

When I think of what I want to listen to while I choke the chicken, I come straight to this. The sound of their political ramblings really get me off.

Very honest varied perspectives

April 3, 2015 by Torchstone from United States

Not your normal crap.
A very good mix of opinion that shows that not only is everyone their own man (or woman, or man turned woman ;-) but libertarians themselves are a mixed bag as well.

Great Podcast

April 2, 2015 by PurplelyPurp from United States

Good podcast for new libertarians.

Political commentary that doesn't take itself seriously

April 2, 2015 by Jonnyprince from United States

This is very easy to digest commentary from a libertarians perspective. Excellent for those new to the Liberty movement or just curious to see what it's all about. It helps that it's pretty funny, too.

Great Show

April 2, 2015 by Akpalmer1979 from United States

Great show with insight you don't get from mainstream media.

I like it

February 26, 2015 by SkiBum 1978 from United States

This is a pretty good podcast for newbie Libertarians.

Great Podcast

February 7, 2015 by The LAVA Flow from United States

I listen to every single episode. Great podcast with a great cast of characters. Keep it up, guys!

Great podcast

September 20, 2014 by Goofy goner from United States

I love this podcast.

Best Libertarian Podcast

November 25, 2013 by PNWdankery from United States

This is easily one of my favorite podcasts week after week. I like how each person on the show brings their unique views to the show and they always cover excellent talking points. Very informative, and always get a few laughs.

Awesome

November 14, 2013 by Pug IBMC from United States

Great show. Knowledgeable fellas. Good time listening to the show.

Very Solid

November 3, 2013 by rcon14 from United States

Informative and exposed me to some topics I was initially unfamiliar or uninformed on. Love the interviews as well. Helps add current resolutions to the issues. Like the range of libertarian views, gives a wide perspective.

Mr.

September 10, 2013 by SandersTactical from United States

Awesome pod cast! Very intelligent, informed, and entertaining hosts! They offer opinions across the Libertarian spectrum providing a well rounded response to each issue presented. These guys and gals are a great resource for all Liberty loving individuals.

Great show!

September 10, 2013 by Brent J. from United States

I stumbled across this show a few weeks ago and find it very interesting.
Despite the Indiana-centric elements not being relevant to me as a Minnesotan, the show is great!
Episode 58, was very interesting and thought provoking!

A new addiction

August 15, 2013 by PaulVCope from United States

I look forward to this podcast more than anything else each week. If you want commentary on the latest happenings in the world, this podcast delivers without question. Even though they are all libertarians there is plenty of back and forth with very different views.

These guys get it.

August 3, 2013 by Brad@MyHeroesThink from United States

Its funny. Co-workers just think I'm listening to music all day. But instead, I'm immersed in a conversation between a gang of Libertarians. It's great, and it makes my day fly by. Smart people. Great flow. Its just what I was looking for...

WAL is the best

July 18, 2013 by sbarber12542 from United States

One of my favorite podcasts. the thing I like about it is that the host and co-hosts can have seriuos conversations about politics and then go off on a tangent that is absolutly hilariuos. The best episodes are the ones were you guys are unprepared and off the cuff. Chris Spangle is the best host and makes the podcast awesome. Any podcast with himk on it is awesome keep up the good work guys. Also if you could talk about some good books for the newly converted libertarian that would be great!

My favorite podcast and best source for libertarian talk

July 13, 2013 by Jluginbyhl from United States

I have listened to every show. They are all great. Sometimes they are very informative and other times very entertaining. It's a great cast. I look forward to every new show.

Awesome!

July 7, 2013 by AngrySoft from United States

Instead of wasting all their time talking about issues, they just come across as some average nerds talking to each other!

Great stuff!

May 15, 2013 by Rat Poux from United States

Love the discussions on current events and politics and happy to see a lively Libertarian podcast out there!
Keep the great work coming guys. =D

I find myself joining the debate alone in my car...

May 14, 2013 by dasher528 from United States

This podcast is the best libertarian podcast I have heard so far on iTunes! I have about an hour and a half commute to work everyday and this podcast makes the time fly by. It is so refreshing to hear other people openly discuss the Libertarian philosophy without being cut off by a talkshow host with an agenda to push. I cannot tell you how awesome it is to know that there are smart educated people in the world who share the same viewpoints as I do. The ONLY reason I did not give 5 stars is because new shows are not frequent enough :( Now I realize we all have day jobs but honestly, with Libertarianism becoming more mainstream and people looking for a voice like their own, I think it would be wise to prioritize this show to ensure there is at least one new show a week... and if you would like a female libertarian from Chicago to offer a different viewpoint, give me a call!!!

Intelligent Political Conversation

April 24, 2013 by Ryan Ripley from United States

This podcast produces excellent political content that makes you think. The co-hosts are all well spoken and very knowledgable about the Libertarian movement. The emotions run high at times, but that is a big part of the fun. Highly recommended!

Extremely Well Done

April 24, 2013 by Yellowperchman from United States

This is by far the best political podcast I have ever listened to. I sincerely hope this group of guys catch on like wildfire and eventually get their own nationally syndicated radio/tv show. They are that good. We need less progressive and neocon talking heads and more sensible/pragmatic people like them. I do must say, I miss Gault!!!! :-D

I love this podcast! It's funny yet informative. It has definitely been instrumental in my conversion away from rightwing conservatism. You will laugh at loud with the hosts as they mock and make fun of each other. Bring back Gault.

Great Podcast

March 12, 2013 by dbcva from United States

Like Lifesavers have peppermint, wintergreen, and traditional five flavors, this podcast represents all of the varied and tasty flavors of libertarianism.

Great Podcast

March 8, 2013 by mawest84 from United States

I've been searching for a Libertarian themed podcast for a while, and was mostly unsatisfied with what I'd listened to. That was until I found this one. The topics are always interesting and the conversations are smart. I've recommended the 'cast to most of my friends since I've started listening. Really appreciate what these guys are doing.

Scourge of the Earth

March 8, 2013 by Miah Akston from United States

I think its so so ... could be better ... nah just kidding ... I LOVE IT

One of my go-to podcasts

March 8, 2013 by annilita1 from United States

I always look forward to getting a new episode. Nice range of libertarian beliefs, well argued and researched.

Great podcast, 1 minuscule problem.

February 20, 2013 by DataMatr1x from United States

This is a great podcast for libertarian ideas. My ONLY complaint is the annoying new intro. I appreciate the attempt but... Not everyone is Weird Al.

Better than anything ever, ever

February 9, 2013 by MyOpinionIsUndeniable from United States

Best political podcast on the internet. Best political commentary there is...makes mainstream media look like children. 1,000,000,000 stars!! Listen to thsi podcast!!!! Ahhhh!!!!

Great show

February 6, 2013 by indytim33 from United States

Best. Libertarian podcast. Ever.

Thanks

October 13, 2012 by HoosierCountry from United States

Thanks to everyone for their kind reviews! - Spangle

Good 4 ppl new 2 politix

August 29, 2012 by KrypticKaos_ from United States

The guys are informative for people who may not be very familiar with politics and government. They're also funny, which makes it easy to listen to. If you're young you should try it out.

Finally

June 4, 2012 by Boolez from United States

A podcast who speaks for the average joe. Gary Johnson 2012! -Bz

WAL Radio

Listen to WAL 24/7 and live on TuneIn, Apple Radio, ask Alexa or Google Home to "Play We Are Libertarians Radio" or download our apps:

Contribute

Communities

Submit News

Chris Spangle Show

The Chris Spangle Show is a podcast about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Chris Spangle of We Are Libertarians brings listeners a daily dose of libertarian commentary on current events.

The Brian Nichols Show

The Brian Nichols Show is for libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, moderates, independents, and even those on the left, who are actively seeking a political news program that objectively covers the week's news to help educate, enlighten, and inform.

The Boss Hog of Liberty

Jeremiah Morrell is the Boss Hog of Liberty. He runs a rural Indiana county with an iron fist. Listen in as Jeremiah, Sara Potter, Dakota Davis, and Audrey Jo Peavie discuss life and politics in rural America.

Tad Talk

Tad Western is a man's man, comedian, and political commentator. A true national treasure who speaks his mind with a fiery informed tongue. Tad likes his whiskey neat and his women messy.

Upward

Upward provides tips and strategies to help move more people towards the top of the diamond. We Are Libertarians presents training sessions and special podcasts to teach the basics of running for office, county party organization, and other forms of libertarian activism.